A lot of enemies and bosses are just terrible. Seven hells (except greed), abysses and vanguards are fine, but everything besides them is just gimmicky shit or launch/stagger immune, and this is in the game where you are supposed to go crazy with a freestyle combat. Fallen are particularly insufferable, whenever I fight them I just lose my will to play the game.
Launcher immune and stagger immune enemies are created as such so that they give you something to think about when mixed with other weaker guys. It's about juggling multiple types of combat types at the same time.
It's one of the most boring and cheap ways of creating difficulty, instead of making enemies a threat with clear weakness you just take away player's tools, making them unfun to fight in the process. Hell vanguards are engaing, because you can stagger and parry them, and their attacks are pretty dangerous, but enemies like chess pieces just go and attack you and you can't do anything about it.
While Dullahans, Soul Eaters and Fallen are fucking anoying enemies to figth (the chess pices while boring have that cool chess board figth), all enemies in dmc3 have posses a clear/consistent weakness - even those 3.
And the remaning enemies aren't as bad. Sure not everyone of them is as good as Vanguard and Abyss, but they aren't a pain to figth and like Dedicated_Dark they mix things up.
You got to be kidding. The throwing energy guys are a joke, they are just there to fill in gaps of normal enemies. The spiders & the lion medallion things are nice to fight and doesn't even show up most of the time, the lion medallion things are extremely predictable. The invisible going guys are certainly not difficult to kill. And I am pretty sure on Devil Hunter these guys barely even put up a fight...
You are missing the point. It's not about difficulty, they are not fun to fight. Enigmas don't stop their attacks while being hit and staggered, they also can back dash away infinitely with no pauses in between. Soul eaters can not be hit at all unless you turn your back on them and once you face them they disappear in a second. Fallen can not be staggered, fly all the time, can go through walls and try to keep their distance. Dullahans can only be hit in the back and if you try to jump over them they will clip you with their anti air attack, so you have to walk around them to attack. I don't really hate spiders, although they are the worst example of health bloat in the game.
Enigmas are ranged enemies, which do things make interesting when paired with melee opponents. You can block Enigmas arrows with: Royal Guard (obvious); Cerberus (Revolver, Windmill, Flicker and Ice Age); Nevan (the summoned bats protect you). Then the sniper can stun them, with Artemis you don't have to chase them, the Rebellion sword throw attack and Drive are also pretty good; and if you get close enough you can kill them in one 1 hit with Beowulf (the drop is the best attack for this to close the distance quickly). Don't have problems with them.
The spiders high hp, and lack of any annoying gimick, make them a good punching bag enemy - so enemies whose purpose is for you to make an unrelenting crazy combo. But yeah, aside from that not really compelling enemies.
Fallen are also similiar. I would say what makes them anoying to figth is the fact they can only lose health when lose their wings and can fly into walls. Now like I said previously all enemies have a weaknes, the Fallen is to shatter their wings. Tricker to them and use A&R swordmaster attack (then use enemy sterp to keep doing this); alternatively you can use Cerbrus normal mid-air attacks or revolver; there's a moment when they use their lance, where their wings open; if you attack on the rigth time the wings will instantly shatter (good for this is the sword throw, shothgun and sniper); continous fire from E&I will also shatter as will Nevan Air Raid and Vortex. Vergil is also very good because of Yamato being Dark element and the Fallen being Ligth, a Judgement Cut suffices.
Yeah I am not going to argue with you about Soul Eater and Dullahans being boring shit.
But again just because 3/4 enimies are bad doesn't make the remaining 16 bad.
Level design is pretty lackluster, way too much backtracking + a mix of platforming, traps and gimmicky stuff.
I would say the camera angle is what makes it shit, I don't think there is too much backtracking as familiarizing arenas to fight make me more confident, and it has nice cramped areas to actually fight unlike dmc5 and considering there is none of this in DMC5 I actually miss it. Not the backtracking though. You are not going to like DMC4 when you get to it if you find this backtracking annoying.
Yeah 3 doesn't any problems with backtracking, it's well paced.
He is really gonna hate 4 for this.
Also I think you made me realise why I feel like 5 normal difficulty (Son of Sparda is pretty good in challenge) is easier than 3. Because enemies in 5 are better designed and more aggresive, but still I wondered why the levels didn't feel as though. And that comment of yours made me remenber that battle in mission 7, where you are locked in a small metro corridors with lizard enemies spawning, is pretty intense. And that's why, you have to make the best possible use of your skills in cramped areas.
In conclusion I like DMC1 a lot more, I would even say that it's a better game with better design, DMC3 is just very inconsistent when it comes to quality. Not a terrible game, but to me it seems like it's very overrated. One of the best action games of all time ? Not with such glaring flaws.
The flaws are glaring only to you, I hate to say it but getting better and understanding the enemies along with the depth of the combat system should fix it. I have never played a game that has as much depth as DMC3 along with truly good enemies & bosses. So suffice to say I heavily disagree, it is one of, if not the best action game ever made. Nothing else remotely even comes to the same class.
If you think there is another, please go-ahead and name one game that is better because I truly wish to know what you think is better.
Now you just sound like a fanboy. I've already said that I'm not experienced with genre:
It's just that I'm basically playing games like these for the first time. For a very long period I've been playing various RPGs and turn based games, I'm not used for fast paced action that is demanding to your reactions and inputing skills. I've played some classic shooters and beat'em'ups, but it's not the same.
And don't even try to use "git gud" argument on me. I've never said that I was having difficulties, only that I don't find some things fun. And is it really true that no other game comes close to DMC3 in terms of depth ? What about God Hand, Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden or even just other DMC entries ? I haven't yet played them myself, but your statement seems very extreme to me.
DJOGamer PT or anybody else can you help me here ?
DMC1 is good, but not it's better than 3 - which is not overrated, and does deverse a space in any "best action games" list.
3 greatly improved on everything good from 1: combat vastly expanded upon; redesigned, and some new, gameplay mechanics; better arsenal; more enemy variety (you no longer see just one enemy type in each room); much more memorable, fun and challenging story mode; two distinct playstyles (Dante and Vergil); more extra content (unlockables + Bloody Palace); Turbo Mode.
And yes aside from DMC4 and 5, you can count the number of fast paced action games with equal, or higher, gameplay deph than DMC3 with your 2 hands.
IMHO, the only games of this type better than DMC3 are God Hand, Ninja Gaiden Black/Sigma and DMC5.
Dedicated_Dark will surely disagree me with on this, but while 4 has a much more refined combat - and I have a feeling you'll like 4 enemies and bosses much more - I ultimately I think 3 is the more worthwhile experience because it has a much better campaign and I prefer it's arsenal and enemies.
